Hayes v. Wilson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on an account annexed for work done for the plaintiff. The second item of the account was as follows: “ September 13, 1869. To sixty-one days’ work on house, &c., $122.” At the trial in the superior court, the defendant contended that to sustain this item the plaintiff could be permitted to prove only work done on the house itself.
Read the full summary
Contract on an account annexed for work done for the plaintiff. The second item of the account was as follows: “ September 13, 1869. To sixty-one days’ work on house, &c., $122.” At the trial in the superior court, the defendant contended that to sustain this item the plaintiff could be permitted to prove only work done on the house itself. But Eevens, J., permitted the plaintiff to testify, in support of it, that he worked several days for the defendant “ in grading about the house,” besides working on the house ; and instructed the jury “ that if the plaintiff had satisfied them that he had…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The second item in the bill of particulars was sufficient to authorize the admission of proof of the plaintiff’s work on the grading about the house ; the defendant not having moved for a more definite specification.
Exceptions overruled.
2Cited by6 opinions
- Holst v. StewartMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- Vannoy v. KleinIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
- Novash v. Crompton & Knowles Loom WorksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- Hanford Mercantile Store v. SowlveereCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
- Whitaker v. Old Dominion Guano Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1898
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.